The funny thing is, you can not prove that god does not exist, and for people this is enough for them to claim proof of his existence. Even though their is not one bit of evidence to prove he does exist.Faith is not proof but it is all anyone has, and apparently it is enough proof for them.

And people who say just because we don't have the universe figured out (yet), and that there are things we can not explain (yet), that a god must exist.

#14 ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.(2) Therefore, God exists.

I think its pretty clear if you read it that they are supposed to be horseshiat. I think that list was compiled by a bunch of atheists from some newsgroup, as a list of arguments they would frequently come across from religoids.

Do you believe in luck? Sure you do. There's freaky shiat that happens all the time, like karma or the God of luck craps all over some folks, and he rains great genetics and a sweet life on others -- but not you, ya loser.

Sweet, sweet circular reasoning. My favorite has always been:ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)(1) I define God to be X.(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.(3) Therefore, God exists.

1) I define magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs to be X.(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.(3) Therefore, magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs exist.

These proofs don't especially address the notion of faith. Christians (and others) care less about proving something than in believing something. That's what faith is all about. The notion of framing religious thought as "proofs" is off the mark, many believers will tell you. Regardless, the following proof (No. 234) probably comes closest to the mark.

ARGUMENT FROM LOGIC(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.(4) Therefore, God exists.

Atticus FinchActually, the Ontological argument is the only argument that has thus far been impossible to disprove. It's a bit like pulling God out of a hat, but it's logically sound. This website only gives the abreviated version of the argument, however.

The argument originates from St. Anselm after a long fit praying to God for an irrefutable proof of his existence. Verbatim, it is:

"Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."

Boiled down into easy english:

There are real things and things that exist only in the imagination. Real things are greater than imaginary things because they have the positive quality of existence.

We are capable of conceiving of an entity that is greater than all other things in the universe. Thus, that entity exists in your imagination.

However, you can also conceive of that entity existing in reality, even if you don't believe that actually it does. An entity that exists only in your imagination is not as great as an entity that exists in your imagination and also in reality. That makes the real entity greater than the entity in your imagination. Thus, there is something greater (real greatest entity) than the greatest thing that you have imagined (greatest entity existing only in the imagination), which makes no sense, as the entity cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the entity exists both in your mind and in reality.

Focus all critique on Anselm's original; my simplification may have lost some of the finer details. Beware though; nobody has conclusively disproven the argument in a thousand years, and plenty of really great minds have tried.

ARGUMENT FROM RIGHTS(1) The Declaration of Independence founded the U.S.(2) Therefore, the Declaration of Independence is true.(3) The Declaration of Independence says that our rights are "endowed by our Creator."(4) George W. agrees with this.(5) You have rights, don't you???(6) Well where the f*** do you think they came from???(7) Therefore, God exists.

No, that refutation does not work. The argument applies to "that of which there is no greater" and only "that of which there is no greater". Unicorns, purple sweaters, and swiss toasters are not relevant to this proof.

You are correct in that it is absurd to say that just because I can imagine a unicorn, a unicorn must exist. But that has no implication to the Ontological Argument. A real unicorn may be greater than an imagined unicorn, but there is no logical crisis involved in this fact. The entire point of the Ontologocial argument is that that of which there could be no greater must, by nature, have no greater, and that imagining that of which there could be no greater creates this crisis, as the actual existence of that of which there could be no greater is greater than that which is in your imagination.

1)It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

2)God exists as an idea in the mind.

3)A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4)Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

5)But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

6)Therefore, God exists.

The fallacy is in giving God the characteristic of being the greatest. This fallacy is what makes the Ontological Argument look sound at first, however just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists.

I should add, Thales that that's twice now you've simply declared the OA to be wrong or fallacious without explaining why. You are not correct just because you delcare yourself to be so, and it's rather boring entering to a discussion with someone who's only developed approach is a sense of detached smugness. Unless you come up with something useful, I'll just let Anselm's argument speak for itself.

An entity that exists only in your imagination is not as great as an entity that exists in your imagination and also in reality. That makes the real entity greater than the entity in your imagination. Thus, there is something greater (real greatest entity) than the greatest thing that you have imagined (greatest entity existing only in the imagination), which makes no sense, as the entity cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the entity exists both in your mind and in reality.

If I understand correctly the argument is: If I imagine that the greatest thing I can think of is real then by imagining it is real it is greater than what I imagined. Since I am imagining the greatest thing it cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest and the only way for it to be the greatest is for it to be real. Do I understand correctly?

The problem with the argument is the fact that it hinges on the subjective idea of "greatness". The proof moves forward under the assumption that something that exists is inherently greater than something that doesn't exist without actually ever proving it, which is why it's complete and total horseshiat.